On the one hand, there was my late-November birthday and the big turkey feast to look forward to. But on the other, Thanksgiving was when Harold Colbert came to town for a four day revival.

Thursday night, Friday night, Saturday night, and twice on Sunday, Brother Colbert preached fire and brimstone, railing against the evils of Coors Beer and White Owl Cigars (neither of which seemed to me to be the chief temptations of the congregation).

These were services in the true Pentecostal tradition: lots of singing, even more preaching, and ending with a prayer line in which those who felt the need for prayer for healing or blessing or reconsecration (which surely meant virtually every person in church) stood in line so that they could receive prayer with the laying on of hands.

Colbert would put olive oil on the index, middle, and ring finger of his right hand and touch it to the forehead of the one seeking prayer and call on the Almighty for blessing, deliverance or healing, whatever was needed.

Often the supplicants would be overcome by the power of the Holy Ghost, grow week in the knees and become slain in the spirit and, after being caught by those so assigned, would lie on the floor speaking in tongues. More often, should the supplicant not sufficiently feel the Holy Ghost, the power of Colbert’s right arm was there to assist.

While my father looked forward to Colbert’s revivals with excitement, I was decided less enthusiastic. As a pastor’s son, there was no chance of my skipping services, and as I didn’t find his sermons much instructive or uplifting, I had only hours of boredom to anticipate. But I did learn the art of stepping into a prayer line and mingling with the post-prayer parishioners returning to their seats, thus appearing to participate while avoiding strain on my neck.

And while I didn’t enjoy his sermons, I found the man charming and enjoyed the time he spent with our family. His stories took me outside of the small homogenous town and gave me a taste of something else, something bigger.

Colbert was one of the few African-Americans that we knew. Another was a church member and, filling out the roster, my sister-in-law’s nephew, whose father lived in Belize.

And based on this limited sample, we made our assumptions about black people.

You would think that this would result in universal adoration and a desire to rally against injustice. These were three people who we liked and about whom the only differences we could find was the hue of their skin. And certainly no one in our social circle would actively and intentionally discriminate or say hateful words or treat any of these people as inferior. That was un-Christian.

But quiet bigotry and long-standing prejudice are powerful things. Rather than see the physical examples of people in front of us and change the unspoken presumptions about what black people “are like”, our community subconsciously decided that there were two types of African Americans, our blacks, and those radicals down there in Oakland who were doing sit-ins and demanding bussing and protesting and causing all sorts of problems.

We didn’t actually know anything about the blacks in Oakland – other than what we read in the paper that scared and troubled us – but we liked our blacks. Probably more so because they weren’t the Oakland type.

It never occurred to us that the black people we knew and liked were just exactly like the ones who lived in Oakland, with the same opinions and the same anger about unfairness and indignity, and that the only difference was that they didn’t have the luxury of living somewhere that they could protest. It somehow even slipped our attention that Brother Colbert lived in Hayward, a stone’s throw from Oakland.

It was easier to just divide “them” into two groups. And though we didn’t use these terms, we did think in terms of the ‘good blacks’ – the few ones we knew and probably what ‘most real ones are like’ – and the ‘bad blacks’ who we read about in the paper.

I think that this is a common reaction when reality comes into contact with prejudice. Survival instinct has ingrained in our psyche a fear of the other people, the other tribe, the other cave. And letting go of the fear of the unknown is unsettling.

But we’re also geared to learn from experience. Which can set up a conflict.

Our solution is often to assign two entirely contradictory assumptions to the now-less-unknown group and arbitrarily assign its members according to how we perceive them to fit. That way we react from our experience – for some – but still cling to what we’ve read about or heard about or fear.

Even the gay community is not immune.

With regularity I hear about, how rural people “think”, what Republicans “are like”, what conservatives “want to do to us”, how Christians “really believe”. Sure we all know instances of rural Americans, Republicans, conservatives, and Christians (and even rural conservative Republican Christians) who don’t fit those presumptions, but seldom does that change our presumptions. Rather, we go by what we read about on the internet, what we fear.

And, to an even greater extent, we are the subject of this odd double-classification. Those who fight against the rights and equalities of gay people frequently do so while genuinely believing that they like gay people… just not the ones who are causing trouble.

Sarah Palin assures us that she has gay friends. Ex-gay groups for decades felt concern and pain for the poor person trapped in the homosexual lifestyle and railed against the militant activists who were forcing them to stay gay.

This month, when Rep. Jo Jordan, a Hawaiian legislator who is a lesbian, voted against equality, The Christian Post, Christianity Today, and Deseret News were but a few of those who rushed to tell the story and defend the woman from her homosexual critics, thus propping up their good gay/bad gay dichotomy.

But it is not only our opponents who have difficulty in letting go of presumptions and double-classification. Sometimes even those who have spoken in favor of civil equality can see gay people as either good or bad, depending on the extent to which we challenge their assumptions of superiority.

Take, for example, Alec Baldwin.

Baldwin, certainly no conservative, has long been a supporter of gay causes. If questioned, there is no doubt but that Baldwin would tell you that he believes – and genuinely so – that gay people should have all the same legal rights and privileges as heterosexuals and that those who disagree are biased and bigoted and hateful.

But Baldwin also has the bad habit of using anti-gay slurs or challenges to someone’s masculinity whenever displeased. Most recently he was caught on film by TMZ calling a photographer a “cock-sucking faggot”. He has since insisted that he called him a “cock-sucking fathead” or, alternately, a “cock-sucking maggot”, neither of which seem credible.

Personally, I don’t see this outburst as an indication of “secret homophobia”. I think it’s an example of a man who says things that he himself knows are unacceptable but who is emotionally out-of-control and has issues with masculinity.

But irrespective of whether Baldwin used the word “faggot” (he did), it is Baldwin’s latest assertion that illustrates that he, too, sees gay people not simply as people, but through the eyes of double-classification.

Baldwin, who was in negotiation for a show on MSNBC, has been dropped. And his response is sad, but perhaps to be expected. (Gothamist)

“Martin Bashir’s on the air, and he made his comment on the air! I dispute half the comment I made… if I called him ‘cocksucking maggot’ or a ‘cocksucking motherfucker’… ‘faggot’ is not the word that came out of my mouth. That I know. But you’ve got the fundamentalist wing of gay advocacy—Rich Ferraro and Andrew Sullivan—they’re out there, they’ve got you. Rich Ferraro, this is probably one of his greatest triumphs. They killed my show. And I have to take some responsibility for that myself.”

You see, the good gays are okay… but those “fundamentalist gays” are intolerant. They don’t accept it when you accidentally toss out “faggot”. They don’t let you backtrack and claim you used “maggot” instead. They even object to “cocksucking” as an insult.

Baldwin makes the same mistake that my town made about blacks. He assumes that the people who are not directly confronting him must surely agree with him. He fails to see that we all, nearly every gay person, finds his behavior and language choices offensive. Even the hairdresser he pulled out to vouch for his non-homophobia.

This is not to suggest that every gay person should confront or denounce Alec Baldwin. That would accomplish little other than reduce his double-classification to a single classification: his enemy.

Certainly there would have been little accomplished had the few blacks we knew in our small town taken up the role of activist. They would have personally suffered and probably only inflamed racial strife.

But perhaps someone will have the standing and trust to speak to Baldwin about the reality of his offense and let him know that he needs to get off the defensive. Perhaps a ‘good gay’, not one of the ‘fundamentalist wing’, can break through.

I recall Harold Colbert talking to my parents about race issues. And to their credit, they listened. And while they’ve never quite conquered their own racial consciousness (my father recently described his doctor as “an Indian fella from India” but assured me that “he’s the best doctor around”), they’ve come a long way.

The road to equality and decency always requires those who stand firm and lay out their demands and the terms by which they are willing to live. The activists and the militants. The “fundamentalists”. Without Dr. King and the many other civil rights activists, there would have been no change.

But it has also been largely the gentle discussion of the ‘good blacks’ that let their neighbors know that these demands were not unreasonable. That it wasn’t just “some blacks in Oakland” who objected to poor education and discriminatory housing lending and tiny daily demeaning acts. And it was their often overlooked efforts that paved the road for much of America to stop seeing African Americans in terms of ‘what kind of black’ they were but in terms of what kind of person they were.

You might look at my Caucasian features and wonder why I am claiming to be an African American. I may not be a natural descendent of African American lineage, but I feel black and have thus decided to identify as African American. Since I identify as African American, I am African American, and you must accept me as such. Because I claim my identity as an African American, I demand that the law recognize me as such and afford me all the rights and obligations of that ethnicity.

You may think that my decision to claim an African American identity is ridiculous. You would be right. Ethnicity is determined by ancestry and genetic lineage, not by someone’s identified perceptions and “feelings.” But it’s no more ridiculous than the latest craze from the left concerning something they call “gender identity.”
…
The truth, however, is that there is no such thing as “gender identity” any more than there is “ethnic identity.” There is only gender.

Well, no, I would not necessarily think that someone who looks white but who is claiming African American identity is ridiculous. Irrespective of whatever imaginary “rights and obligations” I might think come with being African-American, I understand that I don’t get to pick who is and who is not.

Perhaps it’s partly because I don’t live in a sheltered environment surrounded only by those who are just like me. Perhaps it’s because I know people who have a non-obvious ethnic identity. Perhaps because I’ve had all sorts of ethnicities assumed about me by other people.

But mostly it’s because of a personal experience.

Many years ago, I was working as an internal auditor for a major air and space company. As part of my job, I was assigned the task of auditing the company’s EEOC program to make certain that it was complying with regulations and policy.

I was working along with my randomly selected sample of employee files when I came across the file of a coworker in my own department. And while the paperwork seemed intact, there was one glaring problem. I knew this girl. And though she had checked “African American”, clearly she was not! Perhaps Latina. Perhaps some other ethnic mix or non-Western-European origin, but this girl wasn’t black.

Uncertain what to do, I discussed the problem with my supervisor, who clearly was black. And I learned something interesting, something that might have seemed counter-intuitive but made perfect sense. As far as the EEOC was concerned, race and ethnicity are not determined purely by the origins of one’s ancestors or the color of one’s skin. Culture, how one was raised, the people who you consider family, and many other factors come into play.

If I think I know an employee’s ethnicity, can I just write that in on the report?

A. No. The preferred method of identification is self-identification. Employers need to provide employees the opportunity to self-identify their own ethnicity. If an employee then refuses to do so, employment records or visual observation must be used.

Of course one must have a good reason for the ethnicity or race one adopts. And there is one exception; to legally be a Native American one has to trace to the Indian Rolls (which, due to politics dating back to the Trail of Tears, I cannot, but that’s another story).

But in this case, looks were deceiving. My supervisor knew my coworker’s family and although she “didn’t look African-American” her brothers did.

And as time went on, I met many other people who would not fit well in Schubert’s paradigm. I knew mixed race children adopted by all-white families. I knew two siblings, one of whom identified as German and the other as Black. And I learned that many of the people I meet in Los Angeles are as likely to have grandparents with four different ethnic identities than just one.

Perhaps in Frank Schubert’s world, things are segregated. Perhaps white is very easy to distinguish from black, good people from bad people, male from female. Perhaps he has limited his experiences to those which only fit his expectations.

But when he tries to discuss the real world in the terms of his own limitations, he reveals how truly ignorant he is.

I posed to him another challenge, one I saw as having greater possibility. My biggest fear for yesterday was that we would lose in Maryland and that it could be attributed to the black vote.

When proposition 8 passed in California and exit polls reported 70% support from black voters, a certain amount of racism and resentment resulted. Things were tense for a while and I feared that should there be an appearance that African-American voters had blocked equality that hostilities would escalate.

We have been fortunate recently that tension between the two communities have diminished to a great extent – and this has been due mostly to the leadership and integrity of those who are greatly respected in the African-American community. Perhaps the largest share of credit goes to President Obama, whose administration has stepped boldly and strongly on the side of equality and encouraged many African-Americans to join him.

-57% of Maryland voters say they’re likely to vote for the new marriage law this fall, compared to only 37% who are opposed. That 20 point margin of passage represents a 12 point shift from an identical PPP survey in early March, which found it ahead by a closer 52/44 margin.

-The movement over the last two months can be explained almost entirely by a major shift in opinion about same-sex marriage among black voters. Previously 56% said they would vote against the new law with only 39% planning to uphold it. Those numbers have now almost completely flipped, with 55% of African Americans planning to vote for the law and only 36% now opposed.

-The big shift in attitudes toward same-sex marriage among black voters in Maryland is reflective of what’s happening nationally right now. A new ABC/Washington Post poll finds 59% of African Americans across the country supportive of same-sex marriage. A PPP poll in the critical swing state of Pennsylvania last weekend found a shift of 19 points in favor of same-sex marriage among black voters.

What happened in between? The President evolved. And then NAACP board endorsed equality. And now it appears that there were a large number of black voters who have also completed their evolution process.

To be honest, I did not expect this in the slightest. And (like the polls last year that suddenly and unexpectedly showed a majority of Americans support marriage) it seems too good to be true. And I’m still going to wait for additional polling confirmation (and perhaps even the Maryland vote) before I am fully convinced.

But these are huge and very significant changes and if they are real then I’m delighted to give credit where due. I think that discovering that the National Organization for Marriage was condescendingly playing up racism played a part, but it was the President’s announcement that I think really cued the change. (And I can’t wait for NOM’s response… I’m grinning already)

If Black Americans are supporting equality, then I’m ready to party. You bring Obama and I’ll bring the wine… no, scratch that… I’ll bring the water. Miracles are happening.

First, in order for this strategy to have any success, it had to create a long-term division in America along racial lines. Their hope was that African Americans (immediately) and Latinos (as their demographic increased in the voting population) would have a permanent division from White Americans along social issues and that this would be a race-based pride point. Their entire hope was that we all continue to see race as something that makes us inherently different from each other and would continue to view each other through lenses of suspicion, hostility, and fear.

While cynical and evil, this is not the oddest of their prepositions. In order for their plan to have effect, African Americans (and subsequently gays and Latinos) were presumed to be so stupid that they not only wouldn’t notice the objective but would blindly fall for it.

Well some did. Stupidity comes in all sizes, shapes and colors. And there are a small handful of preachers in the community who see race as all important to whom such a message was appealing and who readily lent their name and voice to NOM’s campaign. And there were a few gay folks who read this as “blacks hate us” and sniped back.

But NOM misjudged. Most blacks weren’t interested in joining their anti-gay crusade. Even when their pastor was the celebrated speaker, virtually every face at a NOM event was white. And old. And, for what it’s worth, bored. Blacks didn’t fall for the ploy.

Despite their assumptions, melanin seems to have no inverse correlation to intellect. As it turns out, black people just aren’t as stupid as NOM assumed they were.

But I do believe that NOM has had an impact on the way in which the African American community has thought about the subject of marriage. Since they started their campaign (which we observed during their Tour of Mostly Empty City Plazas), I believe that I have seen a noticeable change.

In the direction towards acceptance.

Now it’s not all champaign and roses between the gay and the black community. The polls in Maryland show that black voters are FAR less likely to support equality (or, at least, were before today). But in the community the tone is different, the leadership message is different, the community voices are different, and things are changing.

It’s hard to put numbers on it, but there it’s there if you look.

A few years ago, if a black guy made a homophobic comment he might be called on it, but there was also an accompanying demand to understand his culture and not judge too harshly. I don’t hear that part anymore. What I read are black writers condemning blatant homophobia without any room for excuses.

Where just a few years ago it was presumed that a black actress might support us but certainly no black athlete wanted anything to do with gay issues. Now some of the most respected black men in athletics speak out in favor of full equality and do so with an attitude of “yeah, of course I do, why wouldn’t I?”

And where we did have the official support of many black leaders a few years back, now some of the icons of the community are willing to put their hard-earned reputation on the line in ways we frankly have no right to expect. They worked hard to make sure that what NOM wanted would not succeed.

Sure, some of this was natural flow with the tide. But I also believe that NOM’s efforts to make opposing equality a matter of “what blacks are like” got some African Americans thinking about the issue and about what being black is really all about. And they didn’t much like what NOM was suggesting.

And NOM didn’t have success with Latinos either. It seems that their efforts to get hip young beautiful latinos e latinas were met with a blank faced, “Lo siento, no hablo Inglés … ¡que condescendiente idiota racista!”

Their joint effort during the Carly Fiorina senate campaign in California (“Vota Tus Valores”) yielded one telenovela actress who thought she was there to talk about her religious conversion and talk up the values of chastity. When she found out she was supposed to do political campaigning against the evils of Teh Ghey, she hopped back on the bus and was never seen again.

Because ya know, the funny thing about race-based points of pride is that they are just that. They are issues or matters or traits or peculiarities that feel like home. They are things that are shared that make us into “us”. And Latinos and African Americans aren’t particularly receptive to white folk telling them what they should be proud about.

Ultimately, people pride themselves in what they feel good about. If it’s food flavors that go back dozens or generations, that’s community. Facial expressions that mom got from her mom who got them from her mom, that’s family. A sense of humor that no one else gets, that makes you feel like you are totally and completely accepted and loved. A sense of honor, decency, hard work, commitment to caring for those you are responsible for, charity for those who have less, the ability to always make room for one more, showing love when others may not, those are the values you pass to the next generation.

And those are the pride points that you see in all communities, be they African American, Hispanic American, Irish American, Native American, German American, or I-Have-No-Idea American. The most visible differences are the foods and the songs and the dances and the history, but look past it and really everyone pretty much prides themselves on the same thing: “we are who we are because we love each other.” That is a cultural pride point that happens naturally.

Making sure that someone else doesn’t have the happiness you have? Not so much.

Sure there are tensions. The gay community and the black community have been a bit at odds for a while. But no one is proud of that. We don’t define ourselves in terms on not liking the other. And nothing will heal our grievances quicker than having some outsider try and take advantage.

The House of Delegates’ Judiciary Committee and the Health and Government Operations Committee approved the measure 25-18 in a joint vote, a judiciary panel spokeswoman said. The measure is expected to go to the full House on Wednesday, she said.

Happy Valentines Day

I want to take a moment to thank Rev. Al Sharpton. On the issue of equality, Sharpton is not just saying the right words, he’s putting action behind them.

In Maryland, the factor holding back equality is race. Although Democrats control large majorities of both houses, there is a large black caucus. And in Maryland, black voters are not allies of the gay community and refuse to view disparities in treatment of citizens as discrimination or mistreatment under civil law as a civil rights matter unless the discrimination and mistreatment is directed towards racial minorities. The most vocal opponents of equality have been black ministers and there is about a 30 point polling difference between white Democrats and black Democrats on the issue.

Although the underpinnings of this hostility are old and have many complex contributors, anti-gay activists such as the National Organization for Marriage have deliberately played up and encouraged feelings of resentment. Falsely equating “civil rights” with “black rights”, they are deceptively seeking to suggest to black Marylanders that recognizing the equality of gay citizens is the same as unfairly grabbing what they have had to work so hard to achieve.

And the gay community is, like much of America, inadequately equipped to speak to the specific concerns of African Americans in an authentic voice. If we are to make inroads and find commonality and alliance with other communities, including the black community, we are stuck relying on the generosity of others.

And right now, Al Sharpton has stepped up and is using his voice and his reputation to lobby the Black Church and to speak to Maryland’s African American community. He is speaking not just as an activist, but as a civil rights advocate and, perhaps even more importantly, as a Baptist minister. Having someone of Sharpton’s status stand in for us may be the one ingredient that can make marriage a reality in Maryland.

But for many Angelinos, tonight has been the focus of a lot of time, planning, shopping and work.

Halloween is a very big ordeal here. While in much of the country Halloween is still seen as being primarily for children, here the gay community has adopted it as our very own unofficial holiday. Throw into the mix that Hollywood is home to an industry based on costume and that in this city image reigns supreme and Halloween takes on more importance than it might elsewhere.

So the city’s revelers won’t be at home waiting for the weekend. Rather, they will head out to one of two street fairs: Hollywood or West Hollywood. While the Hollywood festival bills itself as “kid friendly”, that is not the only difference. On Halloween, Hollywood Boulevard grooves to an urban street vibe and as the night progresses develops a slightly harder edge, while WeHo is a dancemix driven celebration of the absurd, wacky and tasteless (and more than a few simply fabulous illusions).

So parents have a choice, bring the kiddies to enjoy a night that is safer in the see-no-penis sense, or one that is safer in the see-no-fistfight sense. And it surprises me sometimes the number of parents who decide that they feel safer with their kids being exposed to gay men and women in downright vulgar costumes than to violence. Hundreds of thousands of people of all ages, races, and orientations converge on the street to make West Hollywood the heart of Halloween.

Sometimes the costumes go far beyond suggestive. For years, a staple has been the traffic cop at the corner directing the flow of pedestrians who is missing the butt out of her pants. And giant boobs and oversized penises – rubber, crafting foam, balloons, and sometimes real – are a certainty.

So at times I find myself wondering if we shouldn’t maybe tone it down some. But I don’t – yet – think it is necessary or even wise to do so.

Unlike Gay Pride, the Halloween Festival is not a declaration to the world about the gay community. It demands no attention and invites no judgment, it isn’t about us as a collective. It has no political element or statement about who we are. If anything, tonight is about who we are not.

But nudity – real or comic – is not the only area where offense can be found. There will also be at least one Jesus, a flock of nuns, and politicians of various stripes (I expect more than a few Marcus and Michele Bachmanns). And there will be people decked out in costumes of other people’s cultures, using contrived “accents”, and playing on stereotypes.

Yet, for the most part, the offense gets a pass. And as cruelty is seldom the intention, it gets written off to ignorance or, perhaps, comedy.

But there is one rule that is observed, a rule I considered challenging this year – unless you are black, don’t come black. You can be Pharaohs with brown makeup, Aztecs in copper, or Greek Gods decked in bronzer (I’ve been all three), but do not show up in a costume of an African American of any age, gender, or period.

This rule developed as a result of Minstrel Shows, at one point the most popular entertainment form in the country. Minstrels were white men (though there were later black mintrels) who painted their faces black and delivered jokes, made bad puns, and sang songs written by or reflective of the style of African Americans.

Not altogether without positive characteristics, this art form introduced white America to black music (or, at least, a white impression of black music) and its influences can be seen today in a number of genres and the shows, which included both male and female characters played by men or male teens, kept alive a long “drag” tradition during the mid nineteenth century. And, more importantly, many shows in the 1830’s had themes which encouraged sympathy for black slaves and contributed to the emancipation movement.

However, many others were vicious or petty and deliberately portrayed African Americans as lazy and childlike and happiest when enslaved. And all minstrel shows, regardless of intent, relied on the assumption of white superiority and created or reinforced stereotypes of African Americans through the use of stock characters such as Lucy Long and Jim Crow. Considering their contribution to negative and demeaning attitudes, most African Americans consider minstrel shows and blackface to be emblematic of the racial inequalities experienced in this country.

Yet, even knowing the history and reason for the universal ban on going black for Halloween, I considered violating that rule.

A group of friends who always do Halloween together decided that this year’s them is “divas”. And they thought I’d make a good Whitney (from the “crack is wack” era). And I toyed with the idea.

Race, as defined in the United States, is fascinating and in many ways both amusing and frustrating. While racism is still active and present and far too easily identified when you look for it, social interaction and respect have made differences less charged and I wonder if it might be time to stop letting race be as restrictive as it has been.

I don’t think we are, as a people, anywhere near the place that blackface can be acceptable. The damage is still present.

But there is a difference between going on Halloween as “a black guy” and going as a specific person, such as Whitney Houston. The presentation is not about “being black” or “doing black things” but rather as a specific person with specific characteristics.

And it’s not exactly a drastic change. As my friend said, it’s just a couple spray tans from my own skin color.

But I thought about it. And asked myself how I’d feel about some straight guy being Carson Kressley for Halloween. It’s not like he could be that character without Carson’s flamboyance or over-the-top personality. And it could be too much. It could be offensive.

And just as a Carson Kressley impersonation could have all the stereotypical campiness of Carson with none of the charm that kept him on Dancing with the Stars for weeks (he too can’t dance), my Whitney could look an awful lot like “guy who darkened his skin and put on a dress”. In other words, it could rely too much on color to identify Whitney and too little on her own personal identifiable characteristics.

And I’m not the right person to make the call on when such a costume could be free of offense. I haven’t lived the black experience; store clerks don’t assume I’m there to steal, no one questions what I wear or drive, and I’ve not been the last one waited on in a restaurant.

I’ve never experienced being treated differently due to race. I’ve never even been – as my mother was just a generation before me – hesitant to admit my ethnic heritage. I don’t get to decide when is long enough.

So whether or not Black America is ready to tolerate a white guy playing black (as Tropic Thunder hints), I’m not the guy to pull it off. I would most certainly offend, and why do that.

So tonight I’m Cher. Half-Breed. Long hair, Indian headdress. My own skin.

And results released last week about a survey of gay men in Washington, D.C. confirm the pattern. While the study found that 14% of the sample of gay men are HIV positive, this was not uniformly distributed.

Men of color who were 30 years or older had the highest rate, more than twice the overall HIV positivity rate. By race and all ages, over a quarter (25%) of black men who participated in the study were HIV positive, more than any other racial group. Over 10% of men who identified as multirace (11%) and other (10%) were HIV positive and 8% of white males who participated in the study were HIV positive.

In fact, this difference was most notable in participants under 30. While 12.2% of young men of color were HIV infected, “of the nearly 100 white men younger than 30, none were HIV-positive.”

This disparity is usually discussed, when it is discussed at all, in terms of social or cultural difference (especially by those who are not African-American). Non-equivalent infection rates are “part of the down-low” or “the result of homophobia in the black community” or “resultant from a lack of self-worth” or some other culture based phenomenon that hints at irresponsible behavior or an inadequate appreciation for safer sex rules.

I do not doubt that there are some social factors (discrimination, economic inequalities, social position, or even media representation) that do contribute to the prevalence of HIV in Black America. But something in this study caught my attention.

Over 40% of men did not use a condom at last sex, though men of color used condoms nearly twice as much as white men.

Younger men who have receptive anal sex (“bottoms”) and older men who have insertive anal sex (“tops”) were less likely to use condoms.

But if black men were twice as likely to use a condom, then how exactly is it that they were more likely to seroconvert?

One explanation that has been bandied about is that because the pool of black men who sleep with black men is already disproportionately infected. Therefore, because there is an increased risk of contact with infected sex partners it raises the likelihood of higher infection rates.

But that doesn’t seem to be evidenced by the results of this study.

The research allows us to compare those who were already aware of their HIV status to those who were newly infected, by race. Assuming that black men were adhering more closely to safe-sex guidelines, this should have been reflected in the ratios. But newly infected men were even more disproportionately men of color than were those already detected.

This seems contradictory to the notion that black men use condoms at higher rates than whites. So perhaps something else is going on. Perhaps there is something other than behavior that is contributing to the disparity.

We know that some communities inherently carry higher risk of certain diseases while others are fairly immune. Tay-Sacks is more commonly found in Ashkenazi Jews, sickle cell anemia is associated with people with recent ancestry from parts of Africa, the Mediterranean, India and the Middle East, and some Scottish islands have higher incidences of color blindness. These are all the results of inherited genes.

So it should not surprise us that various communities may have inherited genetic susceptibilities or immunities that greatly impact the extent to which any individual in that community is at risk for HIV transmission. And, indeed, research does seem to suggest that not all ancestor-location based gene pools respond to potential infection in the same way.

Genetic resistance to AIDS works in different ways and appears in different ethnic groups. The most powerful form of resistance, caused by a genetic defect, is limited to people with European or Central Asian heritage. An estimated 1 percent of people descended from Northern Europeans are virtually immune to AIDS infection, with Swedes the most likely to be protected. One theory suggests that the mutation developed in Scandinavia and moved southward with Viking raiders.

New research shows Africans and people of African descent could be up to 40 percent more likely to get HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, than people of other races.

This appears to be related to the Duffy antigen, a protein on the surface of red blood cells, which plays are role in defense against malaria. This trait appears to be present in over 90% of black Africans and about 70% of African Americans.

Indeed, as I looked for further discussion on the subject of gene-linked susceptibility, it seems that the community of scientists looking for transmission patterns, infection factors, and treatment possibilities share an assumption that genes play a significant role, and one we do not yet fully understand. And even within specific racial groups, some genetic families may be far more susceptible than others.

But this contributing factor seems to be, to a great extent, outside of common knowledge. Even most gay men – including those I know of African descent – seem not be be aware of genetic factors that contribute to increased or decreased infection risk.

And this troubles me. I believe that this is of such significance that it should be emphasized, particularly among those who may have inherited a higher possibility of infection.

As I see it, there are several reasons why an increased understanding of possible racial group or family genetic traits should be part of our consciousness.

First, if African-Americans are not aware of increased risk, they cannot be prepared. And as we learn more about subgroups or families, individuals of all races can take steps to define “safe sex” in more specialized ways. As unfair as such knowledge may seem, knowing that you can’t live by the same standards as everyone else may have life impacting importance for some individuals.

It’s all fine and good to say “always be safe”, but everyone knows someone who slipped up and ended up okay. But if some individuals have inherited higher risk , they need to know that the answer to “what are the odds” is “much higher for me so I don’t dare risk it… ever.”

Second, a different response in one’s body to the presence of HIV should be reflected in treatment and management. It would be foolish not to test to determine whether some treatment protocols were more or less effective based on inherited factors.

Our nation has a history of medical research that assumes that everyone is a white male, and a fairly interchangeable one at that. But if different protocols are more effective for those of African descent, or for others with specific genetic heritage, it would be immoral not to test for such differences and instead rely on, “this is what works for wealthy white men in West Hollywood”.

Third, vaccines under testing should be studied for whether race or inherited attributes impacts effectiveness. I am troubled by the possibility that some vaccines which were discarded as ineffective in some trials may have been very effective in a different demographic.

But I think we need to approach this with sensitivity. HIV/AIDS has a history of blame and stigma; And any discussion which seeks to assign blame or which seeks to make HIV a “black disease” will do more harm than good.

Additionally, we should remember that individuals are, above all else, individual. We should not make assumptions or assign stereotypes.

Instead, we need to focus research and funding, coordinate outreach and education, and for once talk about the impact of HIV on the African American community without hinting that the phenomenon can be explained in terms of behavior.

And in the meanwhile, let’s find a way to be part of the solution. You can contribute to HIV/AIDS prevention efforts that specifically target the African-American community:

You’d think that denouncing the Louisiana Justice of the Peace who refused to marry an interracial couple would be the easiest thing in the world to do. The easiest — even in Louisiana, where virtually every other major elected public official has done so. I mean after all, Loving v. Virginia, the Supreme Court ruling has made interracial marriages legal in all fifty states — that includes Louisiana — for 42 years now. This isn’t controversial anymore, right?

Well it may not be for everyone else on the planet, but Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) isn’t ready to be pinned down. He not only won’t go on the record, and he can’t believe that every other major Louisiana elected official has. I guess he wants to keep his options open. You know, wait and see which way the wind blows:

Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal (R) and Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA) both want JP Keith Bardwell out, and Tangipahoa Parish President Gordon Burgess has called for his resignation. Vitter, on the other hand, smiles and nervously ducks inside an elevator.

A Louisiana justice of the peace said he refused to issue a marriage license to an interracial couple out of concern for any children the couple might have. Keith Bardwell, justice of the peace in Tangipahoa Parish, says it is his experience that most interracial marriages do not last long.

Neither Bardwell nor the couple immediately returned phone calls from The Associated Press. But Bardwell told the Daily Star of Hammond that he was not a racist. “I do ceremonies for black couples right here in my house,” Bardwell said. “My main concern is for the children.”

…If he does an interracial marriage for one couple, he must do the same for all, he said.